Dr '''Michael Fitzpatrick''' is a GP in Stoke Newington, London. He trained at Oxford and the Middlesex <ref>[http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2008/speaker_detail/10/ Speaker profile] Battle of Ideas, acc 23 Mar 2011</ref> Fitzpatrick was a leading member of the now defunct [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] and is an associate of the libertarian anti-environmental [[LM network]]. He has a regular column in ''The Lancet''.

+

Dr '''Michael Fitzpatrick''' recently retired after over 25 years as a GP in Barton House Health Centre, Stoke Newington, London<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/143.full 'author affiliations'], ''British Medical Bulletin'', 2004, Volume 69 (1), pp. 143-153.</ref>. He trained at Oxford and the Middlesex Hospital <ref>[http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2008/speaker_detail/10/ Speaker profile] Battle of Ideas, acc 23 Mar 2011</ref>. Fitzpatrick was a leading member of the now defunct [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] and is an associate of the libertarian anti-environmental [[LM network]] having been involved with [[Spiked]], [[Global Futures]], [[Sense About Science]], the [[Risk of Freedom Briefing]]s, [[Worldbytes]] and the [[Battle of Ideas]]. From 2001 to the present he wrote for [[Spiked]] as the health correspondent. In May 2010 he became, and continues to be, a trustee of the lobby group [[Sense About Science]] having accepted an approach from [[Tracey Brown]]<ref>See Tracey Brown, [http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/36/where-sense-about-science-comes-from 'Where Sense About Science comes from'], 1 June 2012, Sense About Science, accessed 5 March 2015.</ref>. His writing has also been listed as suggested reading for the [[Battle of Ideas]] events since 2005, where he has appeared every year, on 17 panels as of 10th December 2014, including a number of discussion topics, often related to alcohol and drug use. He contributed regularly to the [[British journal of General practice]] between 2002-2012, [[Community Care]] from 2007-2011, and between 2003-2004 he had a regular column in [[The Lancet]], for whom he contributed 31 articles in this period, contributing one further article in 2007.

+

==Links with the LM Network==

Michael Fitzpatrick, like his brother [[John Fitzpatrick|John]], was a leading member of the RCP. He frequently contributed to its monthly review [[Living Marxism]] under the alias [[Mike Freeman]]. Living Marxism later became LM, in which Fitzpatrick had a regular column. Fitzpatrick has since contributed regularly to [[Spiked]] <ref>"[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/author/Michael%20Fitzpatrick/ Articles by Michael Fitzpatrick]", Spiked website, accessed 2 May 2010</ref> and has spoken at events organised by both Spiked and the [[Institute of Ideas]] (IoI), such as its [http://www.instituteofideas.com/Events/current/docs/genetics.html Genes & Society Festival], organised in association with [[Sourcewatch:Pfizer|Pfizer]]. [[Spiked]] and IoI both developed out of [[LM]]. Fitzpatrick has also contributed to the work of the [[Progress Educational Trust]],<ref>[http://www.progress.org.uk/spectrummichaelfitzpatrick Michael Fitzpatrick], Progress Educational Trust</ref> another body with links to the LM network.

Michael Fitzpatrick, like his brother [[John Fitzpatrick|John]], was a leading member of the RCP. He frequently contributed to its monthly review [[Living Marxism]] under the alias [[Mike Freeman]]. Living Marxism later became LM, in which Fitzpatrick had a regular column. Fitzpatrick has since contributed regularly to [[Spiked]] <ref>"[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/author/Michael%20Fitzpatrick/ Articles by Michael Fitzpatrick]", Spiked website, accessed 2 May 2010</ref> and has spoken at events organised by both Spiked and the [[Institute of Ideas]] (IoI), such as its [http://www.instituteofideas.com/Events/current/docs/genetics.html Genes & Society Festival], organised in association with [[Sourcewatch:Pfizer|Pfizer]]. [[Spiked]] and IoI both developed out of [[LM]]. Fitzpatrick has also contributed to the work of the [[Progress Educational Trust]],<ref>[http://www.progress.org.uk/spectrummichaelfitzpatrick Michael Fitzpatrick], Progress Educational Trust</ref> another body with links to the LM network.

−

As of May 2010 he is a Trustee of the controversial lobby group [[Sense About Science]].<ref>[http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/7 Board of trustees], SAS website, acc 10 May 2010</ref> Sense About Science shares its telephone number with an organisation called [[Global Futures]] of which Fitzpatrick is also a Trustee and to which Sense about Science's director, [[Tracey Brown]], and its assistant director, [[Ellen Raphael]], also belong.<ref>George Monbiot, “[http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/ Invasion of the entryists]”, The Guardian, 9 December 2003</ref> <ref>“[http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_george_monbiot.html Interview with George Monbiot]”, LobbyWatch, April 2007; “[http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78 Profiles - Living Marxism]", LobbyWatch, accessed April 2009</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031029232432/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ Sense About Science website contact page], version placed in web archive 29 Oct 2003, acc in web archive 2 May 2010, screengrab [http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Image:SAScontact.jpg here]</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20021016212047/http://www.futureproof.org/contact.htm Global Futures contact page], version of 2002, accessed in web archive 2/5/2010, screengrab [http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Image:Globalfutures.jpg here]</ref>

+

Since May 2010 he has been a Trustee of the controversial lobby group [[Sense About Science]].<ref>[http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/7 Board of trustees], SAS website, acc 10 May 2010</ref> Sense About Science shares its telephone number with an organisation called [[Global Futures]] of which Fitzpatrick is also a Trustee and to which Sense about Science's director, [[Tracey Brown]], and its assistant director, [[Ellen Raphael]], also belonged, prior to its seeming demise.<ref>George Monbiot, “[http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/12/09/invasion-of-the-entryists/ Invasion of the entryists]”, The Guardian, 9 December 2003</ref> <ref>“[http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_george_monbiot.html Interview with George Monbiot]”, LobbyWatch, April 2007; “[http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78 Profiles - Living Marxism]", LobbyWatch, accessed April 2009</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031029232432/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ Sense About Science website contact page], version placed in web archive 29 Oct 2003, acc in web archive 2 May 2010, screengrab [http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Image:SAScontact.jpg here]</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20021016212047/http://www.futureproof.org/contact.htm Global Futures contact page], version of 2002, accessed in web archive 2/5/2010, screengrab [http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php?title=Image:Globalfutures.jpg here]</ref>

[[Image:Globalfutures.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Global Futures contact page showing phone no., web archive version of 2002]] [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Ellen Raphael]] both contributed to the magazine [[LM]], which developed out of the monthly review of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP), [[Living Marxism]]. [[Global Futures]] appears to be one of a series of front groups generated by the political network of individuals involved with [[LM]] and the RCP to forward their political agenda.

[[Image:Globalfutures.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Global Futures contact page showing phone no., web archive version of 2002]] [[Tracey Brown]] and [[Ellen Raphael]] both contributed to the magazine [[LM]], which developed out of the monthly review of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP), [[Living Marxism]]. [[Global Futures]] appears to be one of a series of front groups generated by the political network of individuals involved with [[LM]] and the RCP to forward their political agenda.

−

He was a member of the the joint Forum of the [[Social Issues Research Centre]] and the [[Royal Institution]] which drew up the [http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on Science and Health] to try and 'improve' the reporting of controversial scientific issues like GM foods by the media. Other members of the Forum included Professor Sir [[John Krebs]] FRS, the chairman of the [[Food Standards Agency]], [[Lord Dick Taverne]] QC, the Co-Directors of The [[Social Issues Research Centre]], and Baroness [[Susan Greenfield]], former Director of The [[Royal Institution]].

+

He was also member of the the joint Forum of the [[Social Issues Research Centre]] (which regularly donated to Sense About Science between 2003 and 2007<ref>Based on Internet archive captures of the funders list published on the [http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/funding.html Sense about Science website], accessed 5 March 2015.</ref>), for whom he was a contributor to the formulation of 'Guidelines on Science and Health communication for the media'. He is also a member of the [[Royal Institution]] which drew up the [http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on Science and Health] to try and 'improve' the reporting of controversial scientific issues like GM foods by the media. Other members of the Forum included Professor Sir [[John Krebs]] FRS, the chairman of the [[Food Standards Agency]], [[Lord Dick Taverne]] QC, the Co-Directors of The [[Social Issues Research Centre]], and Baroness [[Susan Greenfield]], former Director of The [[Royal Institution]].

==MMR==

==MMR==

+

Fitzpatrick led the Medical Research Council team that concluded in 1998 that there was no risk from the [[MMR]] vaccine after Dr [[Andrew Wakefield]] claimed that patients had suffered adverse reactions from it. In a 2004 paper published in the ''[[British Medical Bulletin]]'' Fitzpatrick argues

The unfolding of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) controversy reveals some of the key features of the cultural climate affecting matters of health and illness in contemporary society. A high level of anxiety around issues of health is reflected in a heightened sense of individual vulnerability to environmental dangers (such as atmospheric pollution, electromagnetic fields, bioterrorism) and in a general aversion to risk, particularly in relation to children. This mood has proved responsive to views sceptical, if not hostile, towards science and medicine and associated professionals, particularly in the sphere of immunization<ref>See [[Michael Fitzpatrick]], [http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/143.full 'MMR: risk, choice, chance'], ''British Medical Bulletin'', 2004, Volume 69(1), pp. 143-153.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

The case itself caused much controversy and Wakefield, who now lives in the USA, continues to stand by his research and deny all allegations against him. His supporters, mostly parents of autistic children, maintain he is the victim of a conspiracy and witch-hunt.<ref> [http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/ We support Dr. Andrew Wakefield], accessed 31 January 2011 </ref>[[Martin J. Walker]] provides a detailed description of the controversy surrounding Fitzpatrick's involvement in the case and questions whether his roles for [[Global Futures]] and [[Sense About Science]], who are both heavily funded by a number of pharmaceutical companies (including the 3 main producers of vaccines), may have had an influence on his research<ref>See: Martin J Walker, [http://www.rescuepost.com/files/fitzpatrick.pdf '''Brave New World of Zero Risk:

+

Covert Strategy in British Science Policy'''], Slingshot Publications, September 2005.</ref>.

+

+

==Views==

+

Many of his articles centre on the belief that all relationships with state institutions are negative, and a vague notion of ‘people know what is best for themselves’, should rule. He has questioned the value of health programmes expanded by the government encouraging the ‘five a day concept’ through the change4life programme and argues it is used as a mechanism to increase the relationship between the state and people’s personal lives, as a result of loss of state authority in other areas.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick interview, [http://www.worldbytes.org/change4life-or-life-for-a-change/ 'Change4Life or life for a change?'], WORLDbytes, accessed 5 March 2015</ref>. He also talks disparagingly about programmes which involve the offering of advice around sexual health issues in a number of articles and strangely takes the position that feminists should not have sought for law enforcement agencies to become involved in domestic violence cases because they (law enforcement) exist as representatives of a patriarchal state. He also sees attempts to encourage GPs to take a proactive approach towards achieving disclosure of domestic violence as 'insidious' and ‘means opening up the personal realm of family life and relationships to professional interference on an unprecedented scale’<ref>See Dr [[Michael Fitzpatrick]], [http://web.archive.org/web/20000818055950/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM118/LM118_Doctor.html 'Second opinion: Domestic violence - NOT a healthcare issue'], ''LM 118'', p. 43, March 1999.</ref>. Fitzpatrick has also described alcohol, tobacco, chemicals, cars, fast food and pharmaceuticals as ‘stigmatised products’<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.VPhImvmsXfM 'The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby: Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality'], 24 January 2013, ''Spiked'', accessed 5 March 2015.</ref> and was frequently cited in the media regarding the Andrew Wakefield MMR-Autism scandal. He has written numerous articles on autism for [[Spiked]], as well as two books, one entitled 'Defeating Autism: a damaging delusion' (Routledge, 2008), which followed from 'MMR and Autism: what parents need to know' (Routledge, 2004).

Fitzpatrick wrote for LM from January 1990 until April 2000, contributing close to 70 articles in this time. He takes a fairly consistent line of argument to a variety of issues, such as Aids, public health, smoking, and BSE amongst others. This often involves describing society as risk averse and quick to panic, arguing either that there is an an orthodoxy that restricts debate on the reality of certain risks, or that 'interested parties' seek to elevate certain forms of risk for their own benefit. These situations are then said to have led to a paralysing application of the precautionary principle which attacks the human spirit.

+

+

====Aids====

+

Many of Fitzpatrick's articles on Aids question the risk the virus poses in the UK, particularly to those understood to be in 'low-risk' groups. He argues the real motive behind health campaigns warning the public of the dangers of Aids was a moral crusade to encourage 'sexual conformity' and to pursue a 'moralist agenda'<ref>For example, see Michael Fitzpatrick [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618184026/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM45/LM45_Aids.html 'Aids panic in disarray'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 45 - July 1992, p. 17.</ref>. He also argues that in 'low risk' groups all forms of sexual activity can be practised and there is no need to practice 'safe sex' for the majority of heterosexuals in the UK, unless having sex with 'high-risk' partners. Fitzpatrick's analysis appears to relate to his disdain for any form of advice, which he appears to see as damaging to the human spirit and an attack on individual freedom.

+

+

'''Creating panic/Managing risk'''

+

+

For example, Fitzpatrick argues that the authorities have sought to exagerate the threat posed by Aids through 'propaganda':

The danger of an imminent and large-scale heterosexual epidemic of Aids in Britain has been the central theme of the vast wave of Aids propaganda that has engulfed British society since 1986.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618184026/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM45/LM45_Aids.html '

The more senior figures in the Aids establishment... were concerned that the limited spread of HIV infection in the West Midlands was undermining their efforts to maintain a high level of public concern around the issue.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000310151903/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM46/LM46_Aids.html 'The truth about the Birmingham Aids panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 46 - August 1992, p. 20, accessed 9 March 2015.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''A Moral agenda'''

+

+

Fitzpatrick argues that government campaigns on Aids were an attempt to deflect attention from economic recession and a mechanism to control people's personal lives:

The government's Aids panic is not a public health campaign at all, but a moral crusade. It is a means of promoting sexual and moral conformity by manipulating public fears about a rare but fatal disease. At a time of economic recession and social crisis, conventional morality and traditional family values provide a much-needed source of cohesion and stability. Aids has provided the most effective vehicle for the drive to restore Victorian values in the Britain of Mrs Thatcher and her successors. The breadth and depth of the consensus around 'safe sex', even when its irrationality has been exposed, is a testimony to the fact that for the government the Aids panic is worth every penny spent on it<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618184026/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM45/LM45_Aids.html '

He also seems to equate campaigns promoting safe sex and warning about the spread of heterosexual Aids (which he describes as the 'aids panic') with an excessive application of the precautionary principle:

The Aids panic is now sustained by the argument that 'we don't know what might happen in the future, but we can't be too careful'. According to this logic, everybody should stay at home in case they get run over by a bus, or perhaps, you never know, hit by a meteor<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618184026/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM45/LM45_Aids.html '

Fitzpatrick argues an Aids orthodoxy has developed which seeks to stifle alternative debate, citing research questioning the links between HIV and Aids. However, whilst he acknowledges that the scientific merits of the alternative research he cites may well be debatable, he strangely still argues this example demonstrates an irrational aids orthodoxy:

Another challenge to the prevailing Aids orthodoxy comes from professor Peter Duesberg and other scientists who assembled for an 'alternative' Aids conference in Amsterdam last month. Duesberg refutes the view that HIV is the cause of Aids, emphasising the role of recreational drugs such as poppers and crack. Others at Amsterdam accepted that HIV plays some role in the genesis of Aids, but only in association with 'cofactors' such as other infections. They were, however, united in condemning the transformation of the HIV/Aids hypothesis into a dogma, the censorship and distortion of alternative theories and the suppression of funding for research into such alternatives. Whatever the scientific merits of Duesberg's case, which are certainly debatable, there can be no doubt that he has exposed the climate of irrationality that surrounds the whole issue.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618184026/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM45/LM45_Aids.html '

Fitzpatrick took a similar line of argument to other 'healthcare issues' when writing for [[Living Marxism]]/[[LM]], often rejecting any attempts to introduce proactive/interventionist approaches to healthcare, which he sees as invading people's personal spheres.

+

+

'''Domestic violence'''

+

+

For example, Fitzpatrick argued against interventionist approaches from GP's in the area of domestic violence, even when they have been shown to be effective at reducing incidences of domestic violence, arguing such policies equated to regulating people's behaviour rather than treating illness:

The long-term consequence of GPs adopting a more proactive approach to domestic violence is more insidious. It means opening up the personal realm of family life and relationships to professional interference on an unprecedented scale...A popular model, featured prominently in the BMA report, is the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Minnesota in America. This seeks, through multiagency working, to transform a range of violent behaviour into non-violent or egalitarian behaviour, showing respect and trust, giving support, being honest and accountable, fairly negotiating, taking shared responsibility, having economic partnership and responsible parenting. Whether or not this approach is effective in terms of deterring domestic violence, it carries the heavy cost of opening up the private sphere to public scrutiny and regulation in a way that is characteristic of authoritarian societies. Such an intrusion into people's intimate life can only be profoundly damaging both for the individual and for society<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000818055950/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM118/LM118_Doctor.html 'Second Opinion: Domestic violence - NOT a healthcare issue'], ''LM'' 118, p. 43, March 1999.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''The precautionary principle and Child protection'''

+

+

Similarly, Fitzpatrick is disparaging towards preventative strategies involving families, and the idea of promoting 'good parenting'. He also apppears to reject the idea of monitoring for child abuse as overly authoritarian:

Doctors are also expected to participate in the machinery of surveillance and intervention that has developed under the rubric of 'child protection'. This means maintaining constant vigilance for signs of abuse or neglect and keeping in close contact with local agencies, including social services and the police. Because, according to Labour front-benchers Jack Straw and Janet Anderson, as people accept that in extreme cases it is justified to intervene to remove children from their families, then it should also be acceptable to intervene at an earlier stage with a preventive strategy ('Parenting: a discussion paper', November 1996). For New Labour, preventing what it considers is an automatic transition from poor parenting, to juvenile delinquency, to a life of crime, justifies interference in every family in the country.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20010528034353/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM98/LM98_Doctor.html 'Doctoring the family'], ''LM'' 98, March 1998, accessed 9 March 2015.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

He also criticises organisations which offer 'advice services' as, for Fitzpatrick, the act of asking for advice can only reinforce the feelings of inadequacy that lead one to ask for advice in the first place, further undermining self-confidence:

+

+

<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">The intrusion of an external source of authority into the family undermines not only confidence, but accountability. This is the effect of help lines such as ChildLine and Parentline...Originally motivated by a concern to expose child abuse, such agencies find themselves dealing with a wide range of day to day family conflicts, in which they act as a sort of conciliation and arbitration service. As a result, children are indulged, adults degraded and parental authority weakened.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20010528034353/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM98/LM98_Doctor.html 'Doctoring the family'], ''LM'' 98, March 1998.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''Obesity'''

+

+

Writing on issues surrounding healthy living, Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of evidence linking obesity and ill-health, particularly amongst those with lower levels of obesity. He also argues campaigns which seek to encourage weight loss provide a useful theoretical justification for imposing controls on everyone in society:

Linking weight to health makes it possible to generalise a sense of risk to the whole population. If more than half the population - including even me - is defined as being overweight, this surely justifies mass campaigns to change people's behaviour in the name of health. A major investigation of links between lifestyle and heart disease last year concluded that 'nearly everyone would benefit from being a little thinner' (British Medical Journal, 2 May 1997). In this way the influence of health professionals is extended from the sick to the well, and it becomes clear that the obsession with obesity provides a mechanism for imposing discipline over the whole of society.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000305151832/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM109/LM109_Doctor.html 'Big girls and health zealots'], ''LM'' 109, p. 33, April 1998.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

====Smoking====

+

'''Anti-tobacco moralism'''

+

+

In one article Fitzpatrick takes the line of argument that the turn towards greater regulation of tobacco in the 1990s reflected broader themes in society which assume individuals are weak, place too much significance on the power of advertising, and in which people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. He also suggests that an emphasis on the addictive qualities of nicotine is somehow indicative of this, rather than a scientific reality:

The political significance of the anti-tobacco crusade is that it resonates with some of the most influential themes in Western society today. It projects an image of the general public as helpless dupes of tobacco propaganda and as pathetic victims of chemical dependency on nicotine. The campaign against tobacco assumes a society of feeble individuals who need to be protected against cigarette adverts and against their own addictive personalities...The new emphasis on nicotine as an addictive drug, a key theme in the current US controversy, reinforces the notion of the vulnerable individual and further undermines the idea of individual responsibility for behaviour.

As with the issues of obesity and Aids, Fitzpatrick develops a line of argument which suggests an unscientific orthodoxy has developed around the impacts of passive smoking, citing a paper published by the [[Social Affairs Unit]] to back up his argument that this risk is exaggerated<ref>Who study, debate, and publish reports on various cultural, social and economic issues, with an 'emphasis on the value of personal responsibility'. See [http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/ 'About Us'], Social Affairs Unit website, accessed November 2008</ref>.

According to a recent Guardian editorial, 'mention of "passive smoking" now attracts groans and ridicule only from a small minority of those refusing to believe the overwhelming weight of opinion' (11 April 1996). It proceeds to invoke a consensus that embraces 'everyone else from the Department of Health to independent researchers' who accept that passive smoking damages health. Such a smug and rhetorical statement, typical of much public health propaganda, should immediately raise suspicion. In fact, much of the case against passive smoking is based on a statistical fallacy: the confusion of relative and absolute risk...(For a rigorous critique see JR Johnstone, 'Scientific fact or scientific self-delusion: passive smoking, exercise and the new puritanism' in Health, Lifestyle and the Environment: countering the Panic, Social Affairs Unit/Manhattan Institute, 1991.)<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20010729013107/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM94/LM94_Smoking.html 'Warning: Anti-tobacco crusades can damage your life'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 94 - October 1996, p. 16.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

In a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' piece Fitzpatrick suggests the drive to ban smoking in public places has not gone far enough and links such policies to Pol Pot's Killing Fields and the Nazi's 'Final Solution':

The public has already endorsed some important initiatives against smokers, driving them out of homes, workplaces, public transport and other public places. It is now time for the government to take the campaign a step further...Recalcitrant smokers could be driven in trucks from the inner city estates where they are concentrated to these camps in remote rural areas. In Cambodia in the 1970s, Pol Pot, a pioneer of the new public health, used this approach to achieve a dramatic reduction in mortality from smoking. It is fortunate that the new government has shown that it is capable of the sort of tough thinking necessary to devise a final solution to the tobacco problem. No doubt there will remain a hard core of those so corrupted by tobacco, its profits and its toxins, that they will refuse to give it up. Filthy habit, filthy people - they will have to be exterminated. The camps can then make room for all the other deviants whose behaviour is designated a major problem of public health - those who are overweight and not inclined towards exercise, those who drink more than the prescribed number of units of alcohol and take illicit drugs<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20010722182538/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM108/LM108_Doctor.html 'Exterminate the filthy smokers'], ''LM'' 108, p. 37, March 1998, accessed 9 March 2015.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

====Paedophilia====

+

Fitzpatrick argues that a new obsession with the issue of child sexual abuse has occurred without a concurrent rise in actual abuse, that feminist calls for the use of the criminal justice system will increase the oppression of women, and that the real reason for the obsession is an 'industry' which seeks to gain from increased incidences of abuse and the state's thirst for increased control over people's personal lives.

+

+

'''Creating panic/Managing risk'''

+

+

Fitzpatrick describes concern around the issue of child abuse as an effort by the state to extend its control over people's personal lives. As such he seeks to portray the issue as society panicking, which implies an exagerated perception of risk:

To explain the intensity and the pervasiveness of the public preoccupation with child sexual abuse, we must look to the wider sense of moral crisis that has engulfed Western society in recent years...The panic about child sexual abuse is another symptom of our anxious age. Here is the most extreme and degrading manifestation of the disintegration of the traditional family, which is also evident in the statistics of divorce and single parenthood, and in impressions of rampant juvenile crime<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618092936/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM60/LM60_Jacko.html 'Child Sex Abuse: Who's really bad?'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 60 - October 1993, p. 16.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''Feminism as Patriarchy'''

+

+

Fitzpatrick also argues that using traditionally patriarchal state institutions, such as the police, against perpetrators of sexual violence, usually men, will inevitably lead to greater oppression of women. However, this clearly ignores the point that refusing to use these institutions in the absence of any alternative inevitably leaves the victims of abuse with no recourse for justice nor defence, and would ensure such institutions remain patriarchal and perpetrators of abuse retain control over victims:

Two British feminists argued for 'the exclusion of abusive men' through criminal proceedings (M MacLeod and E Saraga, 'Child sexual abuse: challenging the orthodoxy', Feminist Review, No28 1988). The feminists' main challenge to orthodoxy is their demand for the use of the state's repressive apparatus within the family. MacLeod and Saraga explicitly repudiate the traditional reticence of the left about state coercion. 'Recently', they note, 'a more complex analysis of state intervention has brought the work and ideas of feminists and some statutory agencies closer together'...It is ironic that the feminists are now inviting the 'patriarchal' state to tackle the problems of the violent patriarch. In reality, the state that safeguards the running of British capitalism at home and abroad has a capacity for violence that vastly exceeds that of the most psychopathic and chauvinist husband. The notion that this state could 'empower not oppress women and children' is an absurdity...The feminist argument combines utopian fantasy with an invitation to repression<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618092936/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM60/LM60_Jacko.html 'Child Sex Abuse: Who's really bad?'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 60 - October 1993, p. 16.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''State power'''

+

+

In a similar analysis to his view of the 'Aids establishment', he appears to suggest that the risk of child abuse is elevated by 'interested parties' who will gain work, or an increase in power, as a result of an increase in perceived cases of child abuse:

For social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, child sexual abuse is a growth area in a contracting market. It provides career opportunities, research prospects, and lots of case conferences to make everybody feel important. Back in 1988, MacLeod and Saraga complained that 'feminist theory is still "out in the cold" when it comes to the professional establishment'. Not any more. When it comes to calls for criminal proceedings, everybody can chorus 'we're all feminists now'...The result of more than five years of public concern about child abuse is the increase in state power and authority over family life. This does nothing to help abused children, but it reinforces the grip of a decadent establishment over a demoralised society<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000618092936/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM60/LM60_Jacko.html 'Child Sex Abuse: Who's really bad?'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 60 - October 1993, p. 16.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

====BSE/CJD====

+

The topic of BSE is frequently cited by members of the [[LM Network]] to justify their claims that society is currently in a heightened sense of panic, highly risk averse and obsessed with the precautionary principle. Fitzpatrick wrote a number of articles along these lines, also adding the idea that 'greens' and 'environmentalists' may have had something to do with the 'panic' surronding BSE. This argument is perhaps used in an effort to belittle concerns of environmentalists and equate all issues raised with new technology with undue panic.

+

+

'''Creating panic/Managing Risk'''

+

Fitzpatrick argues the likelihood of a link between BSE and CJD was given excessive credence by the state and quango's:

The great mad cow panic did not begin in rural England or even in the media: it was launched by parliamentary statements by the ministers of health and agriculture on 20 March, which for the first time endorsed the possibility of a link between BSE, beef and CJD.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000612043604/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM90/LM90_BSE.html 'The great mad cow panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 90 - May 1996, p. 24.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

Fitzpatrick also argues the BSE crisis was based on a society constantly in search of a health scare:

Recent events mark a historic achievement for the cult of the new public health - a health scare, not about a disease, but about the possibility of a disease. In the increasingly virtual reality of late twentieth-century society, we have a real panic about a virtual disease.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000304095704/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM87/LM87_Mad.html 'A mad, mad, mad, mad world'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 80 - June 1995, p. 17.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''BSE and the Precautionary Principle'''

+

+

He argues that the case of BSE demonstrates a risk averse society and appears to suggest that fears surrounding nuclear energy and global warming should be considered as a result of this anxiousness, rather than given any credence:

Why then, if there is no evidence that BSE causes CJD, is there such a wave of panic about the dangers of eating beef? ...The first is the psychology of the contemporary 'risk society'. The panic about mad cow disease took off in a society which has become preoccupied with collective fears of impending doom and with individual anxieties about threats to health, security and safety. We worry about nuclear war and global warming, AIDS and Ebola, mugging and burglary, road rage, child abuse and violence against women.<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000304095704/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM87/LM87_Mad.html 'A mad, mad, mad, mad world'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 80 - June 1995, p. 17.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

In another article he links concern for public health, global warming, nuclear energy, domestic violence and child abuse as having caused this anxious society, and creating a society obsessed with diet:

In our increasingly insecure society, in which familiar social and political landmarks have disappeared, there is a striking tendency to exaggerate the risks of everyday life and to live with a heightened sense of danger, if not one of impending doom. Pressure groups emphasise particular dangers - of nuclear radiation, global warming, atmospheric pollution or of male violence, crime, or diverse forms of abuse. Health hazards resulting from the environment or from individual lifestyle factors are a constant theme of public discussion. Diet provides the link between concerns about environmental threats to health and individual choice<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000612043604/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM90/LM90_BSE.html 'The great mad cow panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 90 - May 1996, p. 24.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

For Fitzpatrick all of these concerns demonstrate a society obsessed with risk:

The notion that we live today in a 'risk society' is increasingly influential. One of the guidelines that has emerged to regulate the 'risk society' is the 'precautionary principle'. This means that unless something can be proved to be safe, don't do it. The logic of this applied to the BSE/CJD controversy is clear: until it can be proved that BSE does not cause CJD, then avoid beef and beef products. As it will take decades to demonstrate this, the precautionary principle dictates lifelong vegetarianism - and close attention to food packages to detect hidden beef products. This may not seem any great sacrifice, but applied systematically to everyday life, the precautionary principle means a life of caution, restraint and, ultimately, resignation<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000612043604/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM90/LM90_BSE.html 'The great mad cow panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 90 - May 1996, p. 24.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''Society Anti-science'''

+

+

He argues society is moving towards the rejection of science, which may have elevated the panic surrounding BSE:

Another factor contributing to the mad cow disease panic is the popular hostility towards modern farming techniques which are widely regarded as a violation of the laws of nature. From this perspective, BSE is, like the lethal viruses that are said to threaten new plagues, an example of the revenge of nature against human arrogance and interference<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000304095704/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM87/LM87_Mad.html 'A mad, mad, mad, mad world'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 80 - June 1995, p. 17.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

He also suggests that environmentalism and vegetarianism are indicators of an anti-science mentality:

In recent years there has been a steady growth in the influence of a set of broadly green, pro-animal, anti-science and technology ideas. These are expressed in the rise of vegetarianism, in an increasingly widespread distaste for intensive farming techniques and in popular campaigns against the transport of live animals and against McDonalds. For people who hold such sentiments, the thesis that BSE causes CJD has an instant attraction: it confirms their view that the production and consumption of meat are evil, and provides them with the additional argument that meat is also dangerous<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000612043604/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM90/LM90_BSE.html 'The great mad cow panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 90 - May 1996, p. 24.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

'''Green/Environmentalist elite capture'''

+

+

He suggests the national curriculum has been 'corrupted' by green prejudice, which has perhaps increased society's fatalism:

These views reflect modern society's extraordinary collapse of confidence in itself. It is a simple fact, familiar to every schoolchild before the corruption of the national curriculum by green prejudice, that human civilisation is based on 'breaking the rules' of nature, on increasing the productivity of nature by cultivating plants and domesticating animals<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000304095704/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM87/LM87_Mad.html 'A mad, mad, mad, mad world'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 80 - June 1995, p. 17.</ref></blockquote>

+

+

He also laments the rise in vegentarianism as contradictory to human development and suggests it is no surprise that a one of the leading proponents of BSE/CJD link is a known vegitarian:

While in the past support for vegetarianism and animal rights were the province of religious zealots, eccentrics, and film and pop stars, these causes today command growing popular - and establishment - support. Academic philosophers and scientists can readily be found to contradict the rational and humanist foundations of modern civilisation... One of the leading proponents of the BSE/CJD link is Professor [[Richard Lacey]], a medical microbiologist whose works are published by the Vegetarian Society. For him, the link is a matter of faith which does not require substantiation by epidemiological or other scientific evidence<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000612043604/http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM90/LM90_BSE.html 'The great mad cow panic'], ''Living Marxism'', No. 90 - May 1996, p. 24.</ref></blockquote>

Fitzpatrick has written articles for [[Spiked]] regularly since 2000, contributing 183 articles. The main topics he focused on in [[Spiked]] were issues surrounding MMR, particularly in relation to the [[Andrew Wakefield]] 'scandal' and suggested links with autism, public health issues and changes to the NHS.

+

+

===Writing for Tobacco (2002)===

+

In 2002 Michael Fitzpatrick wrote an article for the tobacco funded [[Risk of Freedom Briefing]] publication in which he argued society had been medicalised to such an extent that people's personal lives had been invaded, undermining their autonomy and promoting dependency. He appears to question a number of modern definitions of illnesses, particularly those of a psychological nature, arguing many of these definitions allow people to avoid taking personal responsibility for their emotions:

The shift of medical practice away from the treatment of disease towards the regulation of personal behaviour draws doctors into areas in which they have neither competence nor expertise....The medicalization of society reinforces popular anxieties about health and fears about disease. Professional intrusion in personal life undermines individual autonomy and encourages dependency. The proliferation of disease labels, from post-traumatic stress disorder and social phobia to myalgic encephalomyelitis ('ME') and fibromyalgia, tends to prolong incapacity and inflates rates of disability. A return

+

to the old labels — ‘sadness’, ‘fear’, ‘laziness’, ‘apathy’ — would also point the way to the old, and often effective cures<ref>Michael Fitzpatrick [http://powerbase.info/images/1/18/The_Risk_of_Freedom_Briefing_-_issue_no_12_July_2002_%27health_creation%27.pdf 'Inventing Disease'], ''Risk of Freedom Briefing'', Issue No. 12, July 2002, p.2.</ref></blockquote>

−

Fitzpatrick led the Medical Research Council team that concluded in 1998 that there was no risk from the [[MMR]] vaccine after Dr [[Andrew Wakefield]] claimed that patients had suffered adverse reactions from it.

*'''1988 (approx)<ref>See Michael Fitzpatrick, [https://www.autistica.org.uk/category/research/ 'The enduring mystery of the ‘autism epidemic’'], author biographical note, 27 October 2013, ''Autistica'', accessed 9 March 2015.</ref> - 2013<ref>For approximate end date see: Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/author/Dr%20Michael%20Fitzpatrick author archive], biographical note, ''Spiked'', accessed 9 March 2015. This suggests he had retired by the 23rd of August, given that his last article for spiked was written at this time and his author biographical note indicates he was a retired GP.</ref>'''NHS -GP in Stoke Newington, London

*''Sunday 30th October 2005'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: Professor [[Brian Barry]] (author of Culture and Equality), Professor [[Simon Blackburn]] (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, Contributor to 'The Changing Role of the Public Intellectual' edited by [[Dolan Cummings]]), Professor [[Todd Gitlin]] (Professor of journalism and sociology at [[Colombia University]] Graduate School, [[Jewish People Policy Institute]], [[Democratiya]]), and [[Dolan Cummings]] (associate fellow, [[Institute of Ideas]]; editor, [[Debating Humanism]]; was a co-founder of the [[Manifesto Club]], editorial director of the [[Institute of Ideas]], is the editor of [[Culture Wars]], writes for [[Spiked]]), discussing 'Reassessing the Enlightenment?' at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2005/keynotes 'Reassessing the Enlightenment?'], 30 October 2005, ''Battle of Ideas'', accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

+

'''2006'''

+

*''Saturday 28th October 2006'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: Professor [[Malcolm Johnson]] (director, [[International Institute on Ageing and Health]]), [[Raymond Tallis]] (professor of geriatric medicine, [[University of Manchester]], has collaborated with [[Frank Furedi]]), Dr [[Tony Walter]] (reader in sociology, [[University of Reading]] and Centre for Death and Society, [[University of Bath]]), and [[Tiffany Jenkins]] (arts and society director, [[Institute of Ideas]], wrote for [[Living Marxism]], and [[Spiked]]), discussing ‘Morbid Fascinations – our obsession with death’ at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2006/salon_debates ‘Morbid Fascinations – our obsession with death’], 28 October 2006, ''Battle of Ideas'', accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

+

*''Saturday 28th October 2006'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: [[Michael Baum]] (professor emeritus of surgery and visiting professor of medical humanities, [[University College London]], Hadassah UK), [[Jim Pollard]] (writer and editor, [Malehealth.co.uk 'Malehealth']), Dr [[Dana Rosenfeld]] (lecturer, Department of Health and Social Care, Royal Holloway, [[University of London]]; co-editor, Medicalized Masculinities), and Dr [[Liz Frayn]] (senior house officer in psychiatry, [[Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust]], has written for [[Living Marxism]] and [[Spiked]]), Dr [[Tony Walter]] (reader in sociology, [[University of Reading]] and Centre for Death and Society, [[University of Bath]]), ‘Playing Balls – why are men becoming obsessed with their health?’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2006/salon_debates ‘Playing Balls – why are men becoming obsessed with their health?’], 28 October 2006, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*''Sunday 28th October 2007'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: Dr [[Tristram Hunt]] (broadcaster; lecturer in modern British history, Queen Mary, [[University of London]], involved in the setting up of the [[Science Media Centre]]), and [[Bruno Waterfield]] (Brussels correspondent, [[Daily Telegraph]]; has written for [[Living Marxism]], and has links to [[Manifesto Club]]), discussing ‘Frederick Engels’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/site/session_detail/811 ‘Frederick Engels’], 28 October 2007, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*''Saturday 30th October 2010'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: Dr [[Clare Gerada]] (GP; past chair of [[Royal College of General Practitioners]]), [[Katherine Murphy]] (Chief executive, the patients association), [[Roger Taylor]] (co-founder and research director, [[Dr Foster Intelligence]]), and [[Bríd Hehir]] (development manager [[Do Good Charity]]; former NHS health visitor and senior manager, has written for [[Living Marxism]] and [[Spiked]]), discussing ‘Patient centred healthcare: the right to choose?’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2010/session_detail/4134 ‘Patient centred healthcare: the right to choose?’], 30 October 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

+

*''Saturday 30th October 2010'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: Professor [[Virginia Berridge]] (director, [[Centre for History in Public Health]], [[London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]]), Professor [[Mike Kelly]] (director, Centre of Public Health Excellence, [[National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence]] ([[NICE]])), [[Kristin Wolfe]] (head of alcohol policy, [[SABMiller]]), and [[Suzy Dean]] (freelance writer; blogger for [[free society]], linked to [[Manifesto Club]], writes for [[Spiked]], works for [[ClerksWell]]/[[CScape]]), discussing ‘The war on alcohol: new puritanism or healthy sobriety’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2010/session_detail/4145 ‘The war on alcohol: new puritanism or healthy sobriety’], 30 October 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*''Sunday 30th October 2011'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: [[Johannes Busse]] (chair, London group of the [[German Social Democratic Party]] ([[SPD]])), [[Rowenna Davies]] (Labour councillor, Southwark), [[Paul Kelly]] (professor of political theory and head, department of government, [[LSE]]), and [[Peter Smith]] (director of tourism, [[St. Mary’s University College]], Twickenham, London, writes for [[Spiked]]), discussing ‘Can social democracy survive the 21st Century?’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5732 ‘Can social democracy survive the 21st Century?’], 30 October 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

+

'''2012'''

+

*''Sunday 21st October 2012'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: [[Andrew Copson]] (chief executive of the [[British Humanist Association]]), [[Alom Shaha]] (writer and science teacher), [[Mark Vernon]] (journalist) and [[Dolan Cummings]] (associate fellow, [[Institute of Ideas]]; editor, [[Debating Humanism]]; was a co-founder of the [[Manifesto Club]], editorial director of the [[Institute of Ideas]], is the editor of [[Culture Wars]], and writes for [[Spiked]]), discussing ‘Atheism: What's the point?’, at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2012/session_detail/6815 ‘Atheism: What's the point?’], 21 October 2012, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*''Saturday 19th October 2013'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: [[Anne Atkins]] (novelist, columnist and broadcaster), [[Ruth Dudley Edwards]] (columnist, [[Irish Sunday Independent]]; blogger, [[Daily Telegraph]], member of the Advisory Board of the [[New Culture Forum]]), [[Joe Friggieri]] (professor of philosophy and former head of department, [[University of Malta]]), [[Dolan Cummings]] (associate fellow, [[Institute of Ideas]]; editor, [[Debating Humanism]]; was a co-founder of the [[Manifesto Club]], editorial director of the [[Institute of Ideas]], is the editor of [[Culture Wars]], and writes for [[Spiked]]), discussing 'Do as I say not as I do: what's wrong with hypocrisy?' at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2013/session_detail/7827 'Do as I say not as I do: what's wrong with hypocrisy?'], 19 October 2013, ''Battle of Ideas'', accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*''Sunday 19th October 2014'' - Michael Fitzpatrick featured on a panel with: [[Henry Ashworth]] (chief executive, The [[Portman Group]]; former member, Cabinet Office's [[Behavioural Insights Team]]), [[Michael Blastland]] (writer and broadcaster; presenter, [[The Human Zoo]], Radio 4; co-author, The Tiger That Isn't), Dr [[Elizabeth Pisani]] (director, [[Ternyata Ltd]]; author, The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of AIDS), and [[Timandra Harkness]] (journalist, writer & broadcaster; presenter, The Singularity & other BBC Radio 4 programmes; writer & performer, science-based comedy shows including BrainSex, has written for [[Living Marxism]], writes for [[Spiked]], produces and hosts [[Battle of Ideas]] events, has chaired part of an [[Audacity]] event and was director of [[Engaging Cogs]], also has links with [[Culture Wars]], the [[Institute of Ideas]], and the [[Manifesto Club]]), discussing 'The science of public health: where’s the evidence?', at the [[Battle of Ideas]]<ref>See [http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/2014/session_detail/8988 'The science of public health: where’s the evidence?'], 19 October 2014, Battle of Ideas, accessed 27 January 2015</ref>.

*Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/autistic_children_are_not_the_spiritual_saviours_of_mankind/13950#.VP2AK_msXfM 'No, autistic children are not the spiritual saviours of mankind'], ''Spiked'', 23 August 2013.

*Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/god_is_dead_long_live_god/15163#.VIXI9DGsVrY 'God is dead, long live god'], ''Spiked'', 13 June 2014.

+

**Michael Fitzpatrick, [http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/and-the-book-of-the-year-award-goes-to/16386#.VP2Ar_msXfM 'AND THE BOOK OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO…spiked writers pick their best reads of 2014'], ''Spiked'', 19 December 2014.

Links with the LM Network

Michael Fitzpatrick, like his brother John, was a leading member of the RCP. He frequently contributed to its monthly review Living Marxism under the alias Mike Freeman. Living Marxism later became LM, in which Fitzpatrick had a regular column. Fitzpatrick has since contributed regularly to Spiked[4] and has spoken at events organised by both Spiked and the Institute of Ideas (IoI), such as its Genes & Society Festival, organised in association with Pfizer. Spiked and IoI both developed out of LM. Fitzpatrick has also contributed to the work of the Progress Educational Trust,[5] another body with links to the LM network.

Since May 2010 he has been a Trustee of the controversial lobby group Sense About Science.[6] Sense About Science shares its telephone number with an organisation called Global Futures of which Fitzpatrick is also a Trustee and to which Sense about Science's director, Tracey Brown, and its assistant director, Ellen Raphael, also belonged, prior to its seeming demise.[7][8][9][10]

MMR

Fitzpatrick led the Medical Research Council team that concluded in 1998 that there was no risk from the MMR vaccine after Dr Andrew Wakefield claimed that patients had suffered adverse reactions from it. In a 2004 paper published in the British Medical Bulletin Fitzpatrick argues

The unfolding of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) controversy reveals some of the key features of the cultural climate affecting matters of health and illness in contemporary society. A high level of anxiety around issues of health is reflected in a heightened sense of individual vulnerability to environmental dangers (such as atmospheric pollution, electromagnetic fields, bioterrorism) and in a general aversion to risk, particularly in relation to children. This mood has proved responsive to views sceptical, if not hostile, towards science and medicine and associated professionals, particularly in the sphere of immunization[12]

The case itself caused much controversy and Wakefield, who now lives in the USA, continues to stand by his research and deny all allegations against him. His supporters, mostly parents of autistic children, maintain he is the victim of a conspiracy and witch-hunt.[13]Martin J. Walker provides a detailed description of the controversy surrounding Fitzpatrick's involvement in the case and questions whether his roles for Global Futures and Sense About Science, who are both heavily funded by a number of pharmaceutical companies (including the 3 main producers of vaccines), may have had an influence on his research[14].

Views

Many of his articles centre on the belief that all relationships with state institutions are negative, and a vague notion of ‘people know what is best for themselves’, should rule. He has questioned the value of health programmes expanded by the government encouraging the ‘five a day concept’ through the change4life programme and argues it is used as a mechanism to increase the relationship between the state and people’s personal lives, as a result of loss of state authority in other areas.[15]. He also talks disparagingly about programmes which involve the offering of advice around sexual health issues in a number of articles and strangely takes the position that feminists should not have sought for law enforcement agencies to become involved in domestic violence cases because they (law enforcement) exist as representatives of a patriarchal state. He also sees attempts to encourage GPs to take a proactive approach towards achieving disclosure of domestic violence as 'insidious' and ‘means opening up the personal realm of family life and relationships to professional interference on an unprecedented scale’[16]. Fitzpatrick has also described alcohol, tobacco, chemicals, cars, fast food and pharmaceuticals as ‘stigmatised products’[17] and was frequently cited in the media regarding the Andrew Wakefield MMR-Autism scandal. He has written numerous articles on autism for Spiked, as well as two books, one entitled 'Defeating Autism: a damaging delusion' (Routledge, 2008), which followed from 'MMR and Autism: what parents need to know' (Routledge, 2004).

Writing for Living Marxism/LM (1990-2000)

Fitzpatrick wrote for LM from January 1990 until April 2000, contributing close to 70 articles in this time. He takes a fairly consistent line of argument to a variety of issues, such as Aids, public health, smoking, and BSE amongst others. This often involves describing society as risk averse and quick to panic, arguing either that there is an an orthodoxy that restricts debate on the reality of certain risks, or that 'interested parties' seek to elevate certain forms of risk for their own benefit. These situations are then said to have led to a paralysing application of the precautionary principle which attacks the human spirit.

Aids

Many of Fitzpatrick's articles on Aids question the risk the virus poses in the UK, particularly to those understood to be in 'low-risk' groups. He argues the real motive behind health campaigns warning the public of the dangers of Aids was a moral crusade to encourage 'sexual conformity' and to pursue a 'moralist agenda'[18]. He also argues that in 'low risk' groups all forms of sexual activity can be practised and there is no need to practice 'safe sex' for the majority of heterosexuals in the UK, unless having sex with 'high-risk' partners. Fitzpatrick's analysis appears to relate to his disdain for any form of advice, which he appears to see as damaging to the human spirit and an attack on individual freedom.

Creating panic/Managing risk

For example, Fitzpatrick argues that the authorities have sought to exagerate the threat posed by Aids through 'propaganda':

The danger of an imminent and large-scale heterosexual epidemic of Aids in Britain has been the central theme of the vast wave of Aids propaganda that has engulfed British society since 1986.[19]

He has also argued this risk has been exagerated by the 'Aids establishment' in order to ensure public concern for the issue has remained prevalent:

The more senior figures in the Aids establishment... were concerned that the limited spread of HIV infection in the West Midlands was undermining their efforts to maintain a high level of public concern around the issue.[20]

A Moral agenda

Fitzpatrick argues that government campaigns on Aids were an attempt to deflect attention from economic recession and a mechanism to control people's personal lives:

The government's Aids panic is not a public health campaign at all, but a moral crusade. It is a means of promoting sexual and moral conformity by manipulating public fears about a rare but fatal disease. At a time of economic recession and social crisis, conventional morality and traditional family values provide a much-needed source of cohesion and stability. Aids has provided the most effective vehicle for the drive to restore Victorian values in the Britain of Mrs Thatcher and her successors. The breadth and depth of the consensus around 'safe sex', even when its irrationality has been exposed, is a testimony to the fact that for the government the Aids panic is worth every penny spent on it[21]

Aids and the Precautionary Principle

He also seems to equate campaigns promoting safe sex and warning about the spread of heterosexual Aids (which he describes as the 'aids panic') with an excessive application of the precautionary principle:

The Aids panic is now sustained by the argument that 'we don't know what might happen in the future, but we can't be too careful'. According to this logic, everybody should stay at home in case they get run over by a bus, or perhaps, you never know, hit by a meteor[22]

Aids Orthodoxy

Fitzpatrick argues an Aids orthodoxy has developed which seeks to stifle alternative debate, citing research questioning the links between HIV and Aids. However, whilst he acknowledges that the scientific merits of the alternative research he cites may well be debatable, he strangely still argues this example demonstrates an irrational aids orthodoxy:

Another challenge to the prevailing Aids orthodoxy comes from professor Peter Duesberg and other scientists who assembled for an 'alternative' Aids conference in Amsterdam last month. Duesberg refutes the view that HIV is the cause of Aids, emphasising the role of recreational drugs such as poppers and crack. Others at Amsterdam accepted that HIV plays some role in the genesis of Aids, but only in association with 'cofactors' such as other infections. They were, however, united in condemning the transformation of the HIV/Aids hypothesis into a dogma, the censorship and distortion of alternative theories and the suppression of funding for research into such alternatives. Whatever the scientific merits of Duesberg's case, which are certainly debatable, there can be no doubt that he has exposed the climate of irrationality that surrounds the whole issue.[23]

Public Health

Fitzpatrick took a similar line of argument to other 'healthcare issues' when writing for Living Marxism/LM, often rejecting any attempts to introduce proactive/interventionist approaches to healthcare, which he sees as invading people's personal spheres.

Domestic violence

For example, Fitzpatrick argued against interventionist approaches from GP's in the area of domestic violence, even when they have been shown to be effective at reducing incidences of domestic violence, arguing such policies equated to regulating people's behaviour rather than treating illness:

The long-term consequence of GPs adopting a more proactive approach to domestic violence is more insidious. It means opening up the personal realm of family life and relationships to professional interference on an unprecedented scale...A popular model, featured prominently in the BMA report, is the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Minnesota in America. This seeks, through multiagency working, to transform a range of violent behaviour into non-violent or egalitarian behaviour, showing respect and trust, giving support, being honest and accountable, fairly negotiating, taking shared responsibility, having economic partnership and responsible parenting. Whether or not this approach is effective in terms of deterring domestic violence, it carries the heavy cost of opening up the private sphere to public scrutiny and regulation in a way that is characteristic of authoritarian societies. Such an intrusion into people's intimate life can only be profoundly damaging both for the individual and for society[24]

The precautionary principle and Child protection

Similarly, Fitzpatrick is disparaging towards preventative strategies involving families, and the idea of promoting 'good parenting'. He also apppears to reject the idea of monitoring for child abuse as overly authoritarian:

Doctors are also expected to participate in the machinery of surveillance and intervention that has developed under the rubric of 'child protection'. This means maintaining constant vigilance for signs of abuse or neglect and keeping in close contact with local agencies, including social services and the police. Because, according to Labour front-benchers Jack Straw and Janet Anderson, as people accept that in extreme cases it is justified to intervene to remove children from their families, then it should also be acceptable to intervene at an earlier stage with a preventive strategy ('Parenting: a discussion paper', November 1996). For New Labour, preventing what it considers is an automatic transition from poor parenting, to juvenile delinquency, to a life of crime, justifies interference in every family in the country.[25]

He also criticises organisations which offer 'advice services' as, for Fitzpatrick, the act of asking for advice can only reinforce the feelings of inadequacy that lead one to ask for advice in the first place, further undermining self-confidence:

The intrusion of an external source of authority into the family undermines not only confidence, but accountability. This is the effect of help lines such as ChildLine and Parentline...Originally motivated by a concern to expose child abuse, such agencies find themselves dealing with a wide range of day to day family conflicts, in which they act as a sort of conciliation and arbitration service. As a result, children are indulged, adults degraded and parental authority weakened.[26]

Obesity

Writing on issues surrounding healthy living, Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of evidence linking obesity and ill-health, particularly amongst those with lower levels of obesity. He also argues campaigns which seek to encourage weight loss provide a useful theoretical justification for imposing controls on everyone in society:

Linking weight to health makes it possible to generalise a sense of risk to the whole population. If more than half the population - including even me - is defined as being overweight, this surely justifies mass campaigns to change people's behaviour in the name of health. A major investigation of links between lifestyle and heart disease last year concluded that 'nearly everyone would benefit from being a little thinner' (British Medical Journal, 2 May 1997). In this way the influence of health professionals is extended from the sick to the well, and it becomes clear that the obsession with obesity provides a mechanism for imposing discipline over the whole of society.[27]

Smoking

Anti-tobacco moralism

In one article Fitzpatrick takes the line of argument that the turn towards greater regulation of tobacco in the 1990s reflected broader themes in society which assume individuals are weak, place too much significance on the power of advertising, and in which people refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. He also suggests that an emphasis on the addictive qualities of nicotine is somehow indicative of this, rather than a scientific reality:

The political significance of the anti-tobacco crusade is that it resonates with some of the most influential themes in Western society today. It projects an image of the general public as helpless dupes of tobacco propaganda and as pathetic victims of chemical dependency on nicotine. The campaign against tobacco assumes a society of feeble individuals who need to be protected against cigarette adverts and against their own addictive personalities...The new emphasis on nicotine as an addictive drug, a key theme in the current US controversy, reinforces the notion of the vulnerable individual and further undermines the idea of individual responsibility for behaviour.

As with the issues of obesity and Aids, Fitzpatrick develops a line of argument which suggests an unscientific orthodoxy has developed around the impacts of passive smoking, citing a paper published by the Social Affairs Unit to back up his argument that this risk is exaggerated[29].

According to a recent Guardian editorial, 'mention of "passive smoking" now attracts groans and ridicule only from a small minority of those refusing to believe the overwhelming weight of opinion' (11 April 1996). It proceeds to invoke a consensus that embraces 'everyone else from the Department of Health to independent researchers' who accept that passive smoking damages health. Such a smug and rhetorical statement, typical of much public health propaganda, should immediately raise suspicion. In fact, much of the case against passive smoking is based on a statistical fallacy: the confusion of relative and absolute risk...(For a rigorous critique see JR Johnstone, 'Scientific fact or scientific self-delusion: passive smoking, exercise and the new puritanism' in Health, Lifestyle and the Environment: countering the Panic, Social Affairs Unit/Manhattan Institute, 1991.)[30]

In a somewhat 'tongue in cheek' piece Fitzpatrick suggests the drive to ban smoking in public places has not gone far enough and links such policies to Pol Pot's Killing Fields and the Nazi's 'Final Solution':

The public has already endorsed some important initiatives against smokers, driving them out of homes, workplaces, public transport and other public places. It is now time for the government to take the campaign a step further...Recalcitrant smokers could be driven in trucks from the inner city estates where they are concentrated to these camps in remote rural areas. In Cambodia in the 1970s, Pol Pot, a pioneer of the new public health, used this approach to achieve a dramatic reduction in mortality from smoking. It is fortunate that the new government has shown that it is capable of the sort of tough thinking necessary to devise a final solution to the tobacco problem. No doubt there will remain a hard core of those so corrupted by tobacco, its profits and its toxins, that they will refuse to give it up. Filthy habit, filthy people - they will have to be exterminated. The camps can then make room for all the other deviants whose behaviour is designated a major problem of public health - those who are overweight and not inclined towards exercise, those who drink more than the prescribed number of units of alcohol and take illicit drugs[31]

Paedophilia

Fitzpatrick argues that a new obsession with the issue of child sexual abuse has occurred without a concurrent rise in actual abuse, that feminist calls for the use of the criminal justice system will increase the oppression of women, and that the real reason for the obsession is an 'industry' which seeks to gain from increased incidences of abuse and the state's thirst for increased control over people's personal lives.

Creating panic/Managing risk

Fitzpatrick describes concern around the issue of child abuse as an effort by the state to extend its control over people's personal lives. As such he seeks to portray the issue as society panicking, which implies an exagerated perception of risk:

To explain the intensity and the pervasiveness of the public preoccupation with child sexual abuse, we must look to the wider sense of moral crisis that has engulfed Western society in recent years...The panic about child sexual abuse is another symptom of our anxious age. Here is the most extreme and degrading manifestation of the disintegration of the traditional family, which is also evident in the statistics of divorce and single parenthood, and in impressions of rampant juvenile crime[32]

Feminism as Patriarchy

Fitzpatrick also argues that using traditionally patriarchal state institutions, such as the police, against perpetrators of sexual violence, usually men, will inevitably lead to greater oppression of women. However, this clearly ignores the point that refusing to use these institutions in the absence of any alternative inevitably leaves the victims of abuse with no recourse for justice nor defence, and would ensure such institutions remain patriarchal and perpetrators of abuse retain control over victims:

Two British feminists argued for 'the exclusion of abusive men' through criminal proceedings (M MacLeod and E Saraga, 'Child sexual abuse: challenging the orthodoxy', Feminist Review, No28 1988). The feminists' main challenge to orthodoxy is their demand for the use of the state's repressive apparatus within the family. MacLeod and Saraga explicitly repudiate the traditional reticence of the left about state coercion. 'Recently', they note, 'a more complex analysis of state intervention has brought the work and ideas of feminists and some statutory agencies closer together'...It is ironic that the feminists are now inviting the 'patriarchal' state to tackle the problems of the violent patriarch. In reality, the state that safeguards the running of British capitalism at home and abroad has a capacity for violence that vastly exceeds that of the most psychopathic and chauvinist husband. The notion that this state could 'empower not oppress women and children' is an absurdity...The feminist argument combines utopian fantasy with an invitation to repression[33]

State power

In a similar analysis to his view of the 'Aids establishment', he appears to suggest that the risk of child abuse is elevated by 'interested parties' who will gain work, or an increase in power, as a result of an increase in perceived cases of child abuse:

For social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists, child sexual abuse is a growth area in a contracting market. It provides career opportunities, research prospects, and lots of case conferences to make everybody feel important. Back in 1988, MacLeod and Saraga complained that 'feminist theory is still "out in the cold" when it comes to the professional establishment'. Not any more. When it comes to calls for criminal proceedings, everybody can chorus 'we're all feminists now'...The result of more than five years of public concern about child abuse is the increase in state power and authority over family life. This does nothing to help abused children, but it reinforces the grip of a decadent establishment over a demoralised society[34]

BSE/CJD

The topic of BSE is frequently cited by members of the LM Network to justify their claims that society is currently in a heightened sense of panic, highly risk averse and obsessed with the precautionary principle. Fitzpatrick wrote a number of articles along these lines, also adding the idea that 'greens' and 'environmentalists' may have had something to do with the 'panic' surronding BSE. This argument is perhaps used in an effort to belittle concerns of environmentalists and equate all issues raised with new technology with undue panic.

Creating panic/Managing Risk
Fitzpatrick argues the likelihood of a link between BSE and CJD was given excessive credence by the state and quango's:

The great mad cow panic did not begin in rural England or even in the media: it was launched by parliamentary statements by the ministers of health and agriculture on 20 March, which for the first time endorsed the possibility of a link between BSE, beef and CJD.[35]

Fitzpatrick also argues the BSE crisis was based on a society constantly in search of a health scare:

Recent events mark a historic achievement for the cult of the new public health - a health scare, not about a disease, but about the possibility of a disease. In the increasingly virtual reality of late twentieth-century society, we have a real panic about a virtual disease.[36]

BSE and the Precautionary Principle

He argues that the case of BSE demonstrates a risk averse society and appears to suggest that fears surrounding nuclear energy and global warming should be considered as a result of this anxiousness, rather than given any credence:

Why then, if there is no evidence that BSE causes CJD, is there such a wave of panic about the dangers of eating beef? ...The first is the psychology of the contemporary 'risk society'. The panic about mad cow disease took off in a society which has become preoccupied with collective fears of impending doom and with individual anxieties about threats to health, security and safety. We worry about nuclear war and global warming, AIDS and Ebola, mugging and burglary, road rage, child abuse and violence against women.[37]

In another article he links concern for public health, global warming, nuclear energy, domestic violence and child abuse as having caused this anxious society, and creating a society obsessed with diet:

In our increasingly insecure society, in which familiar social and political landmarks have disappeared, there is a striking tendency to exaggerate the risks of everyday life and to live with a heightened sense of danger, if not one of impending doom. Pressure groups emphasise particular dangers - of nuclear radiation, global warming, atmospheric pollution or of male violence, crime, or diverse forms of abuse. Health hazards resulting from the environment or from individual lifestyle factors are a constant theme of public discussion. Diet provides the link between concerns about environmental threats to health and individual choice[38]

For Fitzpatrick all of these concerns demonstrate a society obsessed with risk:

The notion that we live today in a 'risk society' is increasingly influential. One of the guidelines that has emerged to regulate the 'risk society' is the 'precautionary principle'. This means that unless something can be proved to be safe, don't do it. The logic of this applied to the BSE/CJD controversy is clear: until it can be proved that BSE does not cause CJD, then avoid beef and beef products. As it will take decades to demonstrate this, the precautionary principle dictates lifelong vegetarianism - and close attention to food packages to detect hidden beef products. This may not seem any great sacrifice, but applied systematically to everyday life, the precautionary principle means a life of caution, restraint and, ultimately, resignation[39]

Society Anti-science

He argues society is moving towards the rejection of science, which may have elevated the panic surrounding BSE:

Another factor contributing to the mad cow disease panic is the popular hostility towards modern farming techniques which are widely regarded as a violation of the laws of nature. From this perspective, BSE is, like the lethal viruses that are said to threaten new plagues, an example of the revenge of nature against human arrogance and interference[40]

He also suggests that environmentalism and vegetarianism are indicators of an anti-science mentality:

In recent years there has been a steady growth in the influence of a set of broadly green, pro-animal, anti-science and technology ideas. These are expressed in the rise of vegetarianism, in an increasingly widespread distaste for intensive farming techniques and in popular campaigns against the transport of live animals and against McDonalds. For people who hold such sentiments, the thesis that BSE causes CJD has an instant attraction: it confirms their view that the production and consumption of meat are evil, and provides them with the additional argument that meat is also dangerous[41]

Green/Environmentalist elite capture

He suggests the national curriculum has been 'corrupted' by green prejudice, which has perhaps increased society's fatalism:

These views reflect modern society's extraordinary collapse of confidence in itself. It is a simple fact, familiar to every schoolchild before the corruption of the national curriculum by green prejudice, that human civilisation is based on 'breaking the rules' of nature, on increasing the productivity of nature by cultivating plants and domesticating animals[42]

He also laments the rise in vegentarianism as contradictory to human development and suggests it is no surprise that a one of the leading proponents of BSE/CJD link is a known vegitarian:

While in the past support for vegetarianism and animal rights were the province of religious zealots, eccentrics, and film and pop stars, these causes today command growing popular - and establishment - support. Academic philosophers and scientists can readily be found to contradict the rational and humanist foundations of modern civilisation... One of the leading proponents of the BSE/CJD link is Professor Richard Lacey, a medical microbiologist whose works are published by the Vegetarian Society. For him, the link is a matter of faith which does not require substantiation by epidemiological or other scientific evidence[43]

Writing for Spiked (2001-Present)

Fitzpatrick has written articles for Spiked regularly since 2000, contributing 183 articles. The main topics he focused on in Spiked were issues surrounding MMR, particularly in relation to the Andrew Wakefield 'scandal' and suggested links with autism, public health issues and changes to the NHS.

Writing for Tobacco (2002)

In 2002 Michael Fitzpatrick wrote an article for the tobacco funded Risk of Freedom Briefing publication in which he argued society had been medicalised to such an extent that people's personal lives had been invaded, undermining their autonomy and promoting dependency. He appears to question a number of modern definitions of illnesses, particularly those of a psychological nature, arguing many of these definitions allow people to avoid taking personal responsibility for their emotions:

The shift of medical practice away from the treatment of disease towards the regulation of personal behaviour draws doctors into areas in which they have neither competence nor expertise....The medicalization of society reinforces popular anxieties about health and fears about disease. Professional intrusion in personal life undermines individual autonomy and encourages dependency. The proliferation of disease labels, from post-traumatic stress disorder and social phobia to myalgic encephalomyelitis ('ME') and fibromyalgia, tends to prolong incapacity and inflates rates of disability. A return

to the old labels — ‘sadness’, ‘fear’, ‘laziness’, ‘apathy’ — would also point the way to the old, and often effective cures[44]

↑Who study, debate, and publish reports on various cultural, social and economic issues, with an 'emphasis on the value of personal responsibility'. See 'About Us', Social Affairs Unit website, accessed November 2008

↑For approximate end date see: Michael Fitzpatrick, author archive, biographical note, Spiked, accessed 9 March 2015. This suggests he had retired by the 23rd of August, given that his last article for spiked was written at this time and his author biographical note indicates he was a retired GP.